Full Opinion (html_with_citations)

                                RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
                                Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)
                                       File Name: 23a0182p.06

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT



                                                             ┐
 JOSEPH FISCHER; FISCHER FOR SUPREME COURT
                                                             │
 COMMITTEE; ROBERT A. WINTER, JR.,
                                                             │
                             Plaintiffs-Appellants,          │
                                                             │
        v.                                                    >        No. 22-5938
                                                             │
                                                             │
 HONORABLE KAREN A. THOMAS, as Member, Judicial              │
 Conduct Commission; HONORABLE R. MICHAEL                    │
 SULLIVAN, as Member, Judicial Conduct Commission;           │
 HONORABLE EDDY COLEMAN, as Member, Judicial                 │
 Conduct Commission; JEFF S. TAYLOR, as Member,              │
 Judicial Conduct Commission; HONORABLE JOE E.               │
 ELLIS, as Member, Judicial Conduct Commission;              │
 HONORABLE JANET LIVELY MCCAULEY, as Member,                 │
 Judicial Conduct Commission; JIMMY SHAFFER, as              │
 Executive Secretary, Judicial Conduct Commission,           │
                                 Defendants-Appellees.       │
                                                             ┘

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington.
                  No. 2:22-cv-00121—Karen K. Caldwell, District Judge.

                              Decided and Filed: August 16, 2023

                 Before: GRIFFIN, THAPAR, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

                                      _________________

                                            COUNSEL

ON BRIEF: Christopher Wiest, CHRIS WIEST, ATTY AT LAW, PLLC, Crestview Hills,
Kentucky, Thomas B. Bruns, BRUNS CONNELL VOLLMAR & ARMSTRONG, Cincinnati,
Ohio, Zachary Gottesman, GOTTESMAN & ASSOCIATES, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellants.
Jeffrey C. Mando, Olivia F. Amlung, ADAMS LAW, PLLC, Covington, Kentucky, Bethany A.
Breetz, Zachary D. Losey, STITES & HARBISON, PLLC, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellees.

       THAPAR, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which GRIFFIN and MURPHY, JJ.,
joined. GRIFFIN, J. (pg. 7), delivered a separate concurring opinion.
 No. 22-5938                    Fischer, et al. v. Thomas, et al.                         Page 2


                                      _________________

                                           OPINION
                                      _________________

       THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Two judicial candidates sued the Kentucky Judicial Conduct
Commission after they heard the Commission planned to investigate their campaign speech. The
district court denied a preliminary injunction, and the candidates appealed. We enjoined the
Commission from initiating an investigation during the campaign. But the candidates have since
lost their elections. Thus, they no longer face a threat of irreparable harm. We affirm the denial
of the preliminary injunction and dissolve the injunction pending appeal.

                                                I.

       Joseph Fischer and Robert Winter were candidates in Kentucky’s 2022 judicial elections.
A few months before Election Day, the candidates received letters from the Kentucky Judicial
Conduct Commission.        According to the letters, the Commission had received complaints
alleging that the candidates’ campaign speech violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. The letters
didn’t specify which of the candidates’ statements had prompted the complaints, but they did
identify general issues.   The letters faulted Fischer for identifying as “the nominee of the
Republican Party” and faulted both candidates for “seeking, accepting, and using” endorsements
from the Republican Party and making promises about abortion issues likely to come before the
courts. R. 13-1, Pg. ID 118; R. 13-3, Pg. ID 123. The Commission asked the candidates to
respond to the allegations and invited them to discuss their campaigns at a Commission meeting.
The Commission would decide after the meeting whether to institute formal proceedings.

       Rather than wait for the meeting, the candidates sued. Because the letters didn’t specify
which of the candidates’ statements were problematic, the candidates guessed. Fischer had
identified himself as “the Conservative Republican” and used a generic elephant logo in
campaign advertising. R. 13, Pg. ID 100. Winter had called himself “conservative” and “a
Republican.” Id. Both candidates had used endorsements from pro-life groups, and both had
received (but neither sought nor used) endorsements from local Republican Party committees.
 No. 22-5938                    Fischer, et al. v. Thomas, et al.                        Page 3


       In the candidates’ view, the First Amendment protects their statements. They thus asked
the district court for a preliminary injunction. Because their campaigns were ongoing, they
requested an injunction that would allow them to continue their “protected speech between now
and th[e] general election.” R. 3, Pg. ID 40. And because the candidates thought that they’d be
harmed if the Commission even began formal proceedings, they asked for an injunction
“preclud[ing] the initiation of formal proceedings.” Id.

       The district court denied the request, and the candidates appealed. So that they could
continue speaking during their campaigns, the candidates asked us to enjoin the Commission
from instituting formal proceedings while their appeal was pending.        We did.    Fischer v.
Thomas,
52 F.4th 303
 (6th Cir. 2022) (per curiam).

       Election Day came, and the candidates lost their elections. Because the Commission can
still investigate speech the former candidates made during their candidacies, the preliminary-
injunction request isn’t moot. But now that the election is over, the former candidates won’t
suffer irreparable harm. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of a preliminary
injunction, and we dissolve the injunction pending appeal.

                                                II.

       First, we address our jurisdiction. Article III authorizes federal courts to hear “Cases”
and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. This means that, at “all stages of litigation, a
plaintiff must maintain a personal interest in the dispute.” Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski,
141 S. Ct. 792, 796
 (2021). At the outset of this appeal, we held the candidates likely had standing because
the Commission’s proceedings would chill their campaign speech. Fischer, 52 F.4th at 307–09;
but see
id.
 at 314–15 (Griffin, J., dissenting). Now, the election is over, and the Commission
argues that the appeal has become moot.          The appeal is moot if, because of changed
circumstances, a preliminary injunction wouldn’t have a “practical effect” on the candidates’
rights. See Ohio v. EPA,
969 F.3d 306
, 308 (6th Cir. 2020).

       The candidates sought two types of preliminary injunctive relief. First, they asked for an
injunction allowing them to continue their campaign-related speech in the leadup to the
November 8, 2022, election. Because the election has passed, that relief wouldn’t have a
 No. 22-5938                    Fischer, et al. v. Thomas, et al.                          Page 4


“practical effect” on the former candidates’ ability to speak during a campaign. See
id. at 309
;
see also Operation King’s Dream v. Connerly,
501 F.3d 584
, 591–92 (6th Cir. 2007).

       Second, the candidates asked for an injunction preventing the Commission from
instituting formal proceedings against them. Even after Election Day, the Commission can
initiate formal proceedings for conduct occurring during a judicial candidacy. Ky. R. Sup. Ct.
4.025(1). So, the former candidates’ requested injunction would still have the “practical effect”
of preventing those proceedings. See EPA, 969 F.3d at 309. Thus, the appeal isn’t moot. See
Powell v. McCormack,
395 U.S. 486, 497
 (1969).

       The Commission resists this conclusion by arguing that, without an ongoing election, its
proceedings won’t affect the thing the candidates were most concerned about: their ability to
campaign. But the former candidates worry that the Commission’s proceedings will harm them
in other ways too, such as by leading to attorney discipline. For mootness purposes, we don’t
evaluate whether this harm is irreparable. See Chafin v. Chafin,
568 U.S. 165, 174
 (2013).
Instead, we ask whether the injunction will prevent the harm from occurring during the case. See
EPA, 969 F.3d at 309. By preventing the Commission from initiating formal proceedings against
the former candidates, a preliminary injunction would do just that. The preliminary-injunction
request isn’t moot.

                                                III.

       To get a preliminary injunction, the former candidates must show (1) they’re likely to
succeed on the merits, (2) they’re likely to suffer “irreparable harm” without a preliminary
injunction, (3) the balance of equities favor an injunction, and (4) an injunction is in the public
interest. D.T. v. Sumner Cnty. Schs.,
942 F.3d 324, 326
 (6th Cir. 2019). These four components
are often described as factors to be balanced.
Id.
 But the irreparable harm requirement is
“indispensable.”
Id. at 327
. Because the candidates don’t meet this requirement, we begin—and
end—with it.

       In the preliminary-injunction context, “irreparable injury” asks whether, without an
injunction, a plaintiff will likely suffer harm before final judgment that cannot be remedied at
final judgment. See
id.
 This makes sense. The purpose of a preliminary injunction “is merely to
 No. 22-5938                     Fischer, et al. v. Thomas, et al.                           Page 5


preserve the relative positions of the parties until a trial on the merits can be held.” Univ. of Tex.
v. Camenisch,
451 U.S. 390, 395
 (1981). If the former candidates aren’t likely to suffer harm
until after final judgment, or if final judgment would fully remedy their harm, “there’s no need to
grant relief now as opposed to at the end of the lawsuit.” D.T.,
942 F.3d at 327
. Thus, the
former candidates must show harm that is likely, not remediable at final judgment, and
immediate. See Memphis A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Hargett,
978 F.3d 378, 391
 (6th Cir. 2020).

       The former candidates identify four harms they claim they’ll suffer without an injunction.
None meets the irreparable-injury standard.

       First, the former candidates argue that formal proceedings will chill their and other
candidates’ speech in future campaigns.        But there’s no ongoing election, and the former
candidates haven’t indicated that there will be before the case reaches final judgment. Thus, the
risk of chill isn’t “immediate.” See D.T.,
942 F.3d at 327
. If an election looms before this suit is
resolved, the candidates can renew their request for preliminary relief then.

       Second, the former candidates argue that they’ll be irreparably harmed if the Commission
punishes them for their past protected speech. To be sure, if the Commission threatened to
impair the former candidates’ ability to speak “at the time relief was sought,” the candidates
would suffer an irreparable injury. Elrod v. Burns,
427 U.S. 347, 373
 (1976). That’s because
damages don’t remedy “[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms.” See
id.
 But here, the only
speech threatened by the Commission’s proceedings has already occurred. Because punishment
won’t affect the former candidates’ ability to speak, the harm caused by punishment isn’t
irreparable: if a court finds that the past speech was protected, then the appropriate remedy is
damages, not an injunction.

       Third, the former candidates argue that, once the Commission initiates formal
proceedings, a federal court won’t be able to stop them, making any harm caused by those
proceedings irreparable.    That’s because federal courts usually won’t enjoin ongoing state
disciplinary proceedings. See Younger v. Harris,
401 U.S. 37
 (1971); Squire v. Coughlan,
469 F.3d 551
, 555–58 (6th Cir. 2006). But this rule, called Younger abstention, applies only if state
proceedings are “pending” before the federal suit moves beyond its early stages. Doran v. Salem
 No. 22-5938                     Fischer, et al. v. Thomas, et al.                      Page 6


Inn, Inc.,
422 U.S. 922
, 929–30 (1975); Hicks v. Miranda,
422 U.S. 332
, 349–50 (1975). Here,
the federal suit has already moved beyond that point, and the Commission’s proceedings still
aren’t pending.

       To see why, look first to the Commission’s proceedings. The former candidates concede
that the Commission’s proceedings weren’t pending when the candidates filed their federal
complaint. And nothing has happened in those proceedings since.

       Now, look to whether the federal suit has moved beyond the early stages, which depends
on whether proceedings “of substance on the merits” have begun.
Id.
 at 349–50. They have. In
fact, we’ve enjoined the Commission’s proceedings after finding that the candidates were likely
to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claims. That injunction “certainly” qualifies
as proceedings of substance on the merits. See Haw. Hous. Auth. v. Midkiff,
467 U.S. 229, 238
(1984) (grant of a preliminary injunction “certainly” qualifies).

       Since the federal suit has moved beyond the early stages and the Commission’s
proceedings still aren’t pending, Younger abstention won’t apply. See Hicks,
422 U.S. at 349
.
So, the former candidates can’t rely on the possibility of Younger abstention to establish
irreparable harm.

       Finally, the former candidates argue that formal proceedings will harm their reputations.
But the former candidates didn’t raise this theory of harm below. Thus, they’ve forfeited the
argument. See Bannister v. Knox Cnty. Bd. of Educ.,
49 F.4th 1000, 1011
 (6th Cir. 2022).

       Because the former candidates haven’t shown they’ll suffer irreparable harm before final
judgment, they aren’t entitled to a preliminary injunction. We affirm.
 No. 22-5938                     Fischer, et al. v. Thomas, et al.                         Page 7


                                      ___________________

                                        CONCURRENCE
                                      ___________________

       GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge, concurring.

       I join the opinion of the court. I write separately to reiterate my view that plaintiffs lack
standing to challenge the actions of the Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission. See Fischer v.
Thomas,
52 F.4th 303
, 313–15 (6th Cir. 2022) (Griffin, J., dissenting). However, because the
relevant facts have not changed since my colleagues saw it differently, see
id. at 313
 (staying
proceedings), our prior order on standing is the law of the case, see Howe v. City of Akron,
801 F.3d 718
, 739–40 (6th Cir. 2015).

       At this juncture, for the reasons stated by Judge Thapar in his well-written opinion,
plaintiffs have failed to show that they would suffer irreparable harm before final judgment and,
therefore, are not entitled to a preliminary injunction.